Posts Tagged ‘ipod’

Share via email

Scott Nyman

 

With Apple’s new slew of patents coming out of the pipe, it peaked my interest to search through some of their older patents and post them for my readers to enjoy. Without any further introduction, please enjoy the show.

 

U.S. Patent No. 7,166,791 for a “Graphical user interface and methods of use thereof in a multimedia player.” This patent looks to describe the interface for one of the early iPods.

U.S. Design Patent No. D493,454 titled, “Computer.” Does anyone remember the eMac?

U.S. Design Patent No. D423,485 titled, “Computer Display Screen With A Computer Generated Menu Design.” This looks to be the always present menu bar at the top of MacOS.

 

 

 

 

U.S. Design Patent No. D287,967 titled, “Personal Computer Housing.” I know this is an Apple II, but I can’t tell if it is the Apple II C or the Apple II+ (my first computer). Update: This is an Apple II C (Credit belongs to one of our readers, Sean. Thanks!)

U.S. Design Patent No. D303,791 titled, “Computer Housing.” Now, this looks like the Apple II GS (my second computer).

Hopefully, this post brought back some warm memories. Leave a comment below to reminisce about a dinosaur Apple you once owned.

Share via email

Scott Nyman

 

Apple has become well known for its line of “i” products. You may be familiar with the iPod, iPhone, iTunes, iMac, iBooks, and now the iCloud. It turns out that some of these iMonikers are not so original, stirring up the ire of the original owners of the associated marks.

First up, publisher John T. Colby has filed a lawsuit against Apple for infringing on its “iBooks” trademark. Apple does own trademarks for “iBook” and “iBooks,” both either registered or assigned in 2001. However, Colby is alleging using the iBooks mark in 1999, which predates Apple’s first use in 2000.

If this case actually makes it to trial, large amounts of money will likely have to be spent on proving the geographical reach of the Colby mark. However, since Apple owns federal registrations for the iBook related marks, any victory by Colby would likely be limited to that specific geographic region. I’m calling it now, this one will settle.

Next, iCloud Communications has initiated litigation against Apple for infringing on its “iCloud” trademark. iCloud Communications has apparently been using the mark since 2005. Additionally, iCloud Communications alleges that Apple has willfully engaged in its infringing activity, upping the stakes of litigation. Statutory damages for willful infringement of a trademark may be as high as $150,000. However, against a company such as Apple, statutory damages would likely pale in comparison to the actual damages lost by Apple’s use of the mark. Still, proving willful infringement to the Court may provide the legs needed to enjoin Apple from using the iCloud name.

This “iCloud” situation is a little trickier to predict an outcome. On one side, Apple has enough money to settle almost anything. However, this situation reminds me the AppleTV.

You can bet AppleTV is not the result of strategic marketing research. The AppleTV is called the AppleTV because Apple could not call it the iTV without a substantial, and potentially losing, legal battle. Just ask ITV Global and Elgato, maker of the EyeTV television tuner, what they think about Apple selling an iTV.

In fact, about a year ago, rumors started surfacing that Apple was going to rename the AppleTV to be called the iTV and match the rest of the iProduct line. These rumors alone were enough to spark the fire of ITV Global, owners of the ITV television network. I’ll guess that we’ll see the name changed to AppleCloud, meCloud or something else Apple-ish.

Additional reading:

CrunchGear

Ars Technica

 

Share via email

By Scott Nyman

It’s no surprise that Apple holds a large portfolio of intellectual properties. In fact, there are websites dedicated to tracking new patents and trademarks issued to Apple, such as www.patentlyapple.com. It should come to no further surprise that the company would desire to control and profit from such intellectual properties.

A few years ago, Apple began a licensing program as a requirement to market and sell iPod, called the “Made For Apple” program. This program has since transformed into the “MFi Program,” which has expanded licencing to include Apple’s iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Apple describes the MFi as a  “licensing program to develop electronic accessories that connect to iPod, iPhone, and iPad” and allow “licensed developers gain access to technical documentation, hardware components, technical support and certification logos.”

Joining the program allows a developer a license to market and use Apple’s patented technologies without provoking the wrath of the company’s litigation department. Of course, Apple charges for the licenses it provides, and sometimes for each device manufactured. For example, when the program was still called “Made for Apple,” accessory makers were required pay $4.00 for each unit that used Apple’s proprietary connector.

Some companies, including eForCity, decided to manufacture and distribute accessories for Apple’s iDevices without bothering with those pesky licensing fees. I don’t know if these companies thought they could fly under Apple’s radar or just didn’t care, but Apple noticed. In fact, this past July Apple filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement on their patents and trademarks and unfair competition. The defendants attempted to have the suit dismissed on procedural issue, but District Judge Jeremy Fogel has since ordered the case to proceed.

Where the case goes from here is anyone’s guess. Patent and trademark litigation can get very expensive very fast, and I am in no position to guess the financial ability of the Defendant companies to put up a fight against Apple. If history is any indication, eForCity and the others may look to settlement as the best alternative, as similar other Defendants have over an alleged infringement of Apple’s “MagSafe” power connector.

Share via email

By Scott Nyman

Recently, I reported on Microsoft’s warnings to mobile phone manufacturers about adopting Google’s Android platform.  Since that time, the mobile world has exploded into a web of litigation. So far, the players include Microsoft, Apple, HTC, Motorola, Google, and Oracle. This web is so tangled, I had to create a graphic to help make sense of it all.

First, Microsoft is suing Motorola in regard to its Android platform, violating nine Microsoft owned patents. Some of the alleged infringing technologies include notifications, contact databases, synchronization, and meeting requests.

Apple has also entered the ring, bringing suit against HTC. Apple alleges HTC’s use of the Android platform violates key Apple patents related to multi-touch and its object-oriented operating system. Speculation suggests this action against HTC is the first assault in the Apple offensive against Google’s Android platform.

Motorola, not content only litigating with Microsoft, has just recently filed suit to invalidate the Apple patents powering Apple’s infringement case against HTC. Motorola hopes for a declaratory judgment, offering protection from an apparently looming Apple infringement action against them.

Although not directly involved in the preceding infringement suits, Google has pledged to support its partners who helped develop Android. Google has encountered its own legal scuffle with Oracle over the Java platform used in Android. If the Java case is ruled in Oracle’s favor, you can expect Oracle to start filing infringement suits against some of Google’s key partners.

Only time will tell how all these infringement suits play out. It looks like the patent battles are just warming up in the war for mobile dominance.

Share via email

by Jason Fischer

steve-jobs-wtfA while back, attorneys for Apple concocted a creative argument for why jailbreaking your iPhone constituted an infringement of the copyrights in the device’s software, based on the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (more familiarly known as the “DMCA”).  The Library of Congress (as the body that promulgates regulations for enforcement of the Copyright Act) has today proposed an exemption to liability that specifically puts the kibosh on Apple’s legal theory.


Subscribe

Login



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 2213 access attempts in the last 7 days.